Fred Thompson backs off lobbying denial

Politico ^ | 7/12/07 | Mike Allen

[pissant]

Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn’t remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.

The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP’s anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.

Realizing that opponents in both parties are mining his legal career for damaging ammunition, Thompson also is engaging in a bit of preemption. He writes in a column posted Wednesday by the conservative Power Line blog: “[I]f a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.”

The abortion-rights issue arose when the Los Angeles Times reported last week that Thompson had “accepted a lobbying assignment” from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which wanted the administration of President George H.W. Bush to relax a restriction on federal payments to clinics that offered abortion counseling.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo told the Times in an e-mail: “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.” The Times said minutes from a board meeting of the group suggested otherwise.

On Thursday, Corallo offered a less sweeping comment about Thompson and the group: “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.”

So the difference may boil down to how you define “lobbying.” It has been clear for several days that Thompson was not going to stick with a complete denial. When an Associated Press reporter asked him about the matter this weekend at the Young Republicans National Convention, he deflected with one of his folksy observations: “I’d just say the flies get bigger in the summertime. I guess the flies are buzzing.”

Then in an interview with Sean Hannity that was reported by Thomas B. Edsall of The Huffington Post, Thompson was even more evasive: “You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself.”

The former “Law and Order” actor has an anti-abortion voting record as a U.S. senator from Tennessee, but some statements he made early in his political career have led some conservatives to question whether he once had favored abortion rights.

The lobbying controversy illustrates the harsh scrutiny that awaits Thompson when he formally kicks off his campaign, and shows the difficulty of trying to answer high-stakes questions without a full campaign infrastructure.

Thompson aides say they do not believe the brouhaha has hurt him with Republican voters. “Consider the source,” said one Thompson adviser. “Conservatives don’t pay much attention to liberal groups that say they want to help, and tell them why their guy isn’t as great as they think.”

The lobbying story is one of several recent pieces criticizing Thompson, and advisers are now considering pushing back his announcement even further. They had planned to schedule the announcement before an Aug. 5 debate in Des Moines, Iowa, but now are considering jumping in even later than that.

The advisers say they realize how searing the scrutiny will be and want to be ready. And they want to have more of their staff in place. Thompson has to convince skeptics he’s ready for the race and ready for the job, and hopes that a top-flight campaign operation will help make that case. The announcement date will be based on factors that include IRS regulations governing when Thompson will have to disclose the millions of dollars he has already raised.

Thompson says in the Power Line column that he had “half dozen or so lobbying clients.” His column concludes: ‘I’m certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others. As we get further into this political season we will undoubtedly see the further intersection of law, politics and the mainstream media.”

[pissant]

Now that is the kind of post that leads to good dialog. Thank you. I'll reply in kind.

When I saw that one of my all time favorite "hawks" was jumping into the race, I knew pretty quickly I would support him 100%. I also knew, and stated, that the odds were HEAVILY stacked against him, just as they are for the other 2nd tier guys struggling to get traction.

Without the press willing to cover his every speech, campaign stop, and proclamation like it was doing for the big three (Thompson makes it big 4 now), I, as a supporter and Hunter as a campaigner, needed to do more than just glad hand folks and appeal for money. He needed to and needs to spell out not only his qualifications, but to take the others to task for their past silliness.

Hence, in the 3rd debate, Hunter blistered Rudy McRomney and said they were from the Kennedy wing of the republican party, after listing their liberal policies. It does not get much harsher than that. LOL

In addition, here's what the Hunter campaign used to help them do real well in the SC straw poll:

And just for the record, all camapigns have their "hatchet guys" to dig up dirt and expose their rivals. And leaving the candidate himself the ability to deny that they are slinging mud. Even Fred has them.

So Fred is gonna have to run the gauntlet, both in the primary, and if he wins, the general. Team Romney is all over him, as expected. Hunter has to scratch and claw his way up to the place where the other campaigns will be gunning for him. If he does, as I expect, reach top tier status, he will be the subject not only of many negative articles in the MSM, but also posted here on FR. It comes with the territory.

And no, Fredheads have not just started jumping into Hunter threads. There are more "he'll never get anywhere" and he's "nothing but a lazy pork barrel spender" then I can shake a stick at. Starting last january and accelerating once it looked more likely that Fred was gonna run.

Is it annoying? Yes. Have I claimed abuse and told folks not to come on to Hunter threads? No. I've been around here long enough to know that Fred, Duncan, Paul, Mitt or anybody else is gonna get torpedoes incoming.

[pissant]

Rob21 did use some inflammatory rhetoric, but it was no harsher than the language used by many fredheads (and me and Jimrob) used to describe Mitt and Rudy. A timeout would have been sufficient in my view.

[pissant]

Yes, Laura was great. Hewitt, in my opinion, was only pushing hard (and he did) because his guy Romney came out against. He’s always been an open borders guy in the past. Medved at least stood his open borders ground and slapped around by his callers.

[Cicero]

I think I’ve read all the articles on this. The story was put forward in the LATimes by three screaming liberals with connections to hillary. The prime mover is the current president of the Brady Gun Grabbers. The LATimes backed down when questioned, and changed the story several times.

Even if what they say is true, which is very doubtful, not even these guys claim that Fred was actually lobbying for this pro-abortion outfit. What they claim is that he spoke to the lawyer who was doing the lobbying and gave him advice when the other lawyer asked him about it. But they have presented no convincing evidence that this actually took place.

Did Fred speak briefly with another lawyer, maybe at lunch or in the hallway? It’s not surprising if he says he doesn’t remember. Who on earth would remember? In any case, even if he did, this hardly constitutes a major problem. And no one has accused him of actually taking the lobbying job, presumably because there’s no evidence to support it. There wouldn’t be a paper trail for an informal chat about the case, but there would be a paper trail if he signed on, and therefore they didn’t try the more serious accusation, because they knew they’d be caught lying.

It’s not anything near as bad as Mitt Romney as governor signing an order legitimizing gay marriage in Massachusetts, when even the Mass Supreme Court recognized that they lacked the power to force him to do so, and therefore ordered the legislature to convene and legalize it—which they never did. So, why did Mitt jump in and legalize it, when he did not have to, and in fact had no constitutional excuse for doing so?

It was a similar situation when Romney leaned on Catholic charities to get involved with contraception and abortion. Did he have to do this? No. But he did.

[pissant]

His campaign knows exaclty what I’m doing. They read FR. As do Fred’s people, and Mitt’s. They all know what FR is. Playing the Fred the victim card here doesn’t wash with me.

[pissant]

60-40. Soon to be 50-50

[kevkrom]

60-40

Among registered FReepers, it's 63-37.

Soon to be 50-50

Why, are you going to flood the poll?

[kevkrom]

What denial?

Other than yours? Read #124, it lays out the situation perfectly, and makes your objections look silly.

[pissant]

No flooding. Just facts. You’ll be joining us soon enough. ;o)

[kevkrom]

No flooding. Just facts. You’ll be joining us soon enough. ;o)

Doubtful. I was a Keyes supporter. Twice. I know where this train ends up.

[what's up]

Fred used to be pro-choice but changed.

Isn't this why most Freepers railed against Harriet Miers?

I am backing no candidate, but see a lot of hypocrisy in the starry-eyed backing of Thompson when Miers traversed a similar course on abortion.

[pissant]

That’s the big fallacy. Keyes was utterly unqualified to be president, was a guy who stuck his foot in his mouth frequently, came across very odd in debates, even though what he said was usuually great, and had next to no political experience.

Hunter is the exact opposite. Hunter really is the best guy to be CIC.

[lolhelp]

Well I remember every job I ever had also, but I don’t remember every little thing I did or said and I am a youngster, just 70 years young, but then we live a long time in my family.

[pissant]

I’d say a healthy chunk of fredheads here will not even acknowledge that he was pro-choice, even though its indesputable.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

See Post 15.

[pissant]

You’re just too good for your own good. ;o)

[what's up]

I’d say a healthy chunk of fredheads here will not even acknowledge that he was pro-choice, even though its indesputable.

It's interesting to watch them twist when you bring it up.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

No, Pissant’s idiotic asshattery is entirely consistent. ;)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's interesting to watch them twist when you bring it up.

So do you think that Fred plans on being pro-choice should he be elected?

That's the only relevant issue.

Everything else is just empty-headed hens clucking.

[BritExPatInFla]